Studies have shown that pedestrians are struck by cars when crossing

Question

Studies have shown that pedestrians are struck by cars when crossing streets in crosswalks more often than they are struck when crossing outside of crosswalks. This is because crosswalks give many pedestrians an overly strong sense of security that oncoming cars will follow the signals, and these pedestrians are less likely to look both ways before crossing the street.

Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the explanation proposed above?

A. The overwhelming majority of pedestrians in high-traffic areas cross streets in crosswalks.

B. The number of pedestrians struck by cars has increased in recent years.

C. Pedestrians tend to underestimate the chances that the signals at a crosswalk will malfunction.

D. Drivers are generally most alert to pedestrians who are in or near crosswalks.

E. Measures intended to promote safety tend to make people less cautious.

Heisenberg12 · Accepted Answer

Choice C says that Pedestrians tend to underestimate that signals may malfunction. This is quite similar to what the author states that the pedestrians might overlook certain aspects of crossing the roads. Thus it’s not a great weakener.

However, choice A states that the quantum of traffic where people cross on the crosswalks is much more than when people cross outside of crosswalks. This gives a reason different from what the author states. The accidents are not because the pedestrians are less conscious. But the traffic plays a role in creating those accidents.

Posted from my mobile device

tejyr · Answer

Any one explain how to decide b/w A & C

Smiti25 · Answer

I cannot understand how to eliminate the options. Can you provide an explanation for every option?

manasveek · Answer

IMO, this question belongs to very common category of CR GMAT questions.

For example,

#1 Statistics show that more car accidents happen within mile of driver's residence.
Why? because there most driving happens. No other silly reasons.
(This is taken from post of Magoosh expert Mike, I am not getting proper link)

#2 Report says Holiday season shows dramatic increase in no. of airplane accidents.
why? Because more flights are there during holidays.

#3 Another example (and I could find a link now)
https://gmatclub.com/forum/qotd-in-the- ... 56661.html

More Accidents/injuries happening == More use of things.

back to original question here,
I think the question fits this category, as overwhelming majority of pedestrians are on crossways in traffic.
so most accidents happen on crossways. Hence A.

please correct me if I am wrong.

Hope it helps!

Kem12 · Answer

I have a doubt about A though...it seems to give another reason why this general case is common in'high traffic areas' whereas the stimulus states a general case ( doesn't specify high or low traffic) . I don't think option C and the explanation in the stimulus are saying the same thing. The author says (paraphrased) people assume drivers will follow traffic rules, that means that people also assume the traffic lights will function well. Option C says what if the traffic lights malfunction? They are saying 2 different things. Pls help me out if my reasoning is wrong. Thanks.

Posted from my mobile device

Posted from my mobile device

Heisenberg12 · Answer

If we want to look at the question in a very generalised way (just for the sake of understanding), let's say this:

The author blames pedestrians (blames is too strong a word and I am just using it for the sake of understanding) that they have an overly strong sense of security at the crosswalk.

Option C states that the pedestrians tend to underestimate that signals at the crosswalk will malfunction. This attitude of the pedestrians "may/may not" be because of "that" STRONG sense of security mentioned in the argument. Anyway, option C maintains that somehow, Pedestrians are responsible for what happens to them.

But if you look at Option A, it passes on the blame to HEAVY TRAFFIC. So maybe, pedestrians are doing nothing wrong. Maybe they don't have a strong sense of security, but still the accidents are happening. And because this option gives us another reason for pedestrians' accidents on the crosswalk, it makes sense.

abhishekdadarwal2009 · Answer

Studies have shown that pedestrians are struck by cars when crossing streets in crosswalks more often than they are struck when crossing outside of crosswalks. This is because crosswalks give many pedestrians an overly strong sense of security that oncoming cars will follow the signals, and these pedestrians are less likely to look both ways before crossing the street.

Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the explanation proposed above?

A. The overwhelming majority of pedestrians in high-traffic areas cross streets in crosswalks.  
Correct weakener, more number of people cross the road on crosswalk in high traffic.

B. The number of pedestrians struck by cars has increased in recent years. 
too broad,out of scope.

C. Pedestrians tend to underestimate the chances that the signals at a crosswalk will malfunction. 
does not fit in, there are better options available.so no the best weakener.

D. Drivers are generally most alert to pedestrians who are in or near crosswalks. 
this strengthens

E. Measures intended to promote safety tend to make people less cautious.  
too broad, better options available.

mitrakaushi · Answer

When we say something happens more often than another, it doesn't necessarily mean that the number of people that get hit at crosswalks is more than that who get hit away from crosswalks. It can also mean that the same person, when crossing on a crosswalks gets hit 5 times in a life time compared to say when he crosses without a crosswalk. The wording of the question can be improved.

rajamech · Answer

Answer choice (A) provides this alternative explanation and so undermines the argument.

INCORRECT ANSWERS
(B) brings up something concerning, but doesn't tell us where the increased number of fatalities are occurring (in crosswalks or outside them), nor does it offer any hints as to why this is occurring--leaving the argument's explanation as a contending reason for why these fatalities are occurring.
(C) strengthens the argument that pedestrians have an overly strong sense of security crossing in crosswalks.
(D) strengthens the argument by eliminating a competing explanation for the higher fatality rate within crosswalks. If drivers were paying less attention at crosswalks (maybe they're distracted by so many things to be aware of at one time) that could explain the greater number of fatalities, but since drivers are paying attention at crosswalks, this alternative explanation is ruled out.
(E) strengthens the argument by suggesting that pedestrians are possibly made less cautious by the crosswalk, which is a measure promoting the safety of pedestrians.
#OE

Priyanka2018 · Answer

Hi,

Can someone explain how D is strengthening the argument.
I am not able to get it.

Thanks

gmatexam439 · Answer

D is a neutral statement that is simply a fact. It neither strengthens nor weakens.

Understand that the premise is talking about people getting hit by cars more often while walking in crosswalks. Therefore, drivers being more cautious about people walking in or near crosswalks doesn't change the fact - people walking in crosswalks are more prone to accidents than outside - presented in the premise.

Thus, D has no impact on the argument.

I hope that helps.

Posted from my mobile device

auradediligodo · Answer

Studies have shown that pedestrians are struck by cars when crossing streets in crosswalks more often than they are struck when crossing outside of crosswalks. This is because crosswalks give many pedestrians an overly strong sense of security that oncoming cars will follow the signals, and these pedestrians are less likely to look both ways before crossing the street.

Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the explanation proposed above?

Pre-thinking

Once we understand the argument this question is extremely easy to solve.

Author's reasoning

The author says that more people are run over when they cross on crosswalk than when they cross elsewhere. Based on this evidence, the conclusion states that people who cross on crosswalk somehow are less careful than people who cross elsewhere.

Now let's work on the assumption made by the author.

Falsification scenario  : What if the majority of people cross on crosswalks and a very little number of people cross elsewhere? If we like numbers: What if 10 millions of people cross on crosswalks and just a 1000 of people cross elsewhere? Since the author is talking in numbers this scenario would break the conclusion because now it's just a matter of probability. In fact now more people are run over on crosswalks than elsewhere because the probability to be run over on crosswalks is simply higher.

Assumption  : The number of people who cross on crosswalks is comparable with the number of people who cross elsewhere

A.   The overwhelming majority of pedestrians in high-traffic areas cross streets in crosswalks. 
 This option works on our pre-thought assumption and it clearly undermines the author reasoning

B. The number of pedestrians struck by cars has increased in recent years.
 Irrelevant

C. Pedestrians tend to underestimate the chances that the signals at a crosswalk will malfunction.
 This option is a strengthener

D. Drivers are generally most alert to pedestrians who are in or near crosswalks.
 This option does not impact the conclusion since pedestrian are still kind of reckless per the author's reasoning

E. Measures intended to promote safety tend to make people less cautious.
 Irrelevant

ashutosh_73 · Answer

Hi   GMATNinja   KarishmaB    ReedArnoldMPREP    MartyMurray   AjiteshArun

I am little confused with why (A) is the answer. Can't even get this one using POE as A, B and D confused me.

Premise: 
crosswalks give many pedestrians an   overly strong sense of security   that oncoming cars will follow the signals.
these pedestrians are   less likely to look both ways   before crossing the street.

Conclusion: 
pedestrians are struck by cars when crossing streets in crosswalks more often than they are struck when crossing outside of crosswalks

So, purported reasons for higher accidents can be either   careless drivers   OR   careless pedestrians   
 
Why i find this answer absolutely unrelatable is that
  1. argument talks about pedestrian in general, but (A) is quite specific ''  high-traffic areas''.   Seemed overly qualified option.
      2.   how to we know that   not-high traffic areas   do not have most of the accidents?
 
This option gives me another reason to suspect that either   careless drivers   OR   careless pedestrians   can be the reasons.
 Should be the answer. 
 
This one says Drivers are  ''MOST ALERT'',  hence it makes more plausible that  ''careless pedestrians''  is the reason for higher accidents in crosswalks.
 May not weaken the argument.

ReedArnoldMPREP · Answer

Hey there--

For starters, I think you need to take a close look at what you've decided are the 'premise' and 'conclusion' of the argument. Which point supports which?

We have a test for this called the 'therefore test.' Which one is this arugment saying?

"More pedestrians are struck at crossworks" THEREFORE "this is because they are more confident drivers will follow the laws and so they don't look both ways"

or

"More pedestrians are hit at crosswalks because they are more confident drivers will follow the laws and so they don't look both ways" THEREFORE "More pedestrians are struck at crosswalks."

Here's another way of framing it. In this story, is something KNOWN FOR A FACT and is something else a GUESS? The "GUESS" is the conclusion. A FACT can NEVER be a conclusion!

So which do we KNOW:

--That more pedestrians are hit at crosswalks
OR
--The reason more pedestrians are hit at crosswalks is because they don't look both ways

Nipunh · Answer

The initial argument presents a causal explanation for why more pedestrians are struck by cars in crosswalks than outside of them: pedestrians develop a false sense of security in crosswalks and become less cautious. To most effectively undermine this explanation, you need to find an alternative reason for the observed fact that is at least as plausible as the one offered.

Option A does this directly:
A. The overwhelming majority of pedestrians in high-traffic areas cross streets in crosswalks. 
Here's a breakdown of why this most undermines the explanation:
The initial argument's logical flaw: The original explanation jumps to a causal conclusion without considering the base rate of behavior. It observes that crosswalks have more accidents and concludes that crosswalks themselves cause the increased risk through a sense of security.
Alternative explanation: Option A provides a crucial piece of missing context. If most people cross at crosswalks, it's statistically predictable that most accidents would also occur there. This is a simple issue of frequency, not necessarily risky behavior.
Undermining the causation: This new information removes the need for the "false sense of security" explanation. The correlation between crosswalks and accidents is instead explained by the high volume of pedestrian traffic in crosswalks. It suggests that accidents in crosswalks might actually be less frequent on a per-crossing basis than accidents outside of them. 
Why other options are less effective
B. The number of pedestrians struck by cars has increased in recent years. This provides general information about a trend but does not explain the discrepancy in accident locations (in vs. out of crosswalks).
C. Pedestrians tend to underestimate the chances that the signals at a crosswalk will malfunction. This statement, if true, would strengthen the original argument, not undermine it. It reinforces the idea that pedestrians are overconfident in the safety of crosswalks.
D. Drivers are generally most alert to pedestrians who are in or near crosswalks. The original argument focuses on pedestrian behavior. While driver alertness is a variable, this statement doesn't change the central logic about pedestrian overconfidence. It might even be seen as a mitigating factor that should make crosswalks safer, making the original observation more puzzling.
E. Measures intended to promote safety tend to make people less cautious. This is a restatement of the original explanation in more general terms. The original argument is an example of this phenomenon, so it does not undermine the specific reasoning

Studies have shown that pedestrians are struck by cars when crossing

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Studies have shown that pedestrians are struck by cars when crossing

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards